The crime, demeanor, hatred and bitterness of the subculture keeps them in the cycle.
That's too close to "black equals" for me. Closer and more accurate, to my mind, to say a generational, systematic discrimination led to generational and systematic problems for many. Some of the attempts at solutions ended up making new problems instead. Or, it's a complicated issue that has a number of influences, most importantly the empowered and willful segregation and attempt to dehumanize and prohibit advancement and the full exercise of right, along with the commiserate impact of that effort on human dignity.
The term, "African-Americans," is terribly offensive to many
To some, possibly. Many? I don't see how it could be, reasonably. Like Irish Americans suddenly attacking their own parades. Who finds it offensive and for what reason? There's no association between the term and any denigrating principle that I know of and I'm pretty well versed in the subject matter.
so I use, "black," when necessary, to describe one's race.
I think it's more often used these days. Seems like a reasonable choice.
They know they're black. Even though I'm proud of my tan skin, I don't mind being called, "white,"
Well, many of them aren't actually black. More would probably literally be classified as brown to one degree or another, so it's not really that different from your tan/white business.
As to not being offended by being called white, why would you? It's been a symbol of power, cultural/racial dominance and even purity at large, only being associated with a negative when paired, as in "white power".
although I do take offense at such things as, "Black this," "Black that," because if we had white-only websites or other organizations, we'd be deemed racist, whereas their racism is 'acceptable' (though not to me).
How is black this or that indicative of racism? I mean give me a couple of examples because I'm not seeing what you're after there. As for organizations, those aimed at supporting minorities are mostly, historically, attempts to build a means to influence the majority and protect the minority from exploitation, something that would be peculiar for the empowered majority to attempt. So when that majority does it the reason is more typically to exclude and to continue to protect their power base from erosion by those same minorities. A very different purpose and animal and so the very different objection to them and the reason why when and where they exist they tend to be odious (as in, Klan-ish).
I attended a predominately black church for years in the poorest section of town and saw more racism there than any white church I've ever been in.
Maybe it's different where you live, but my experience in the South is that most "white" churches have few black members.
Else how so? I'm interested in what you mean by the usage. I've tended to think of racism, meaningfully, as an expression of empowered bigotry. I'm certain you'll find bigotry in a lot of communities, aimed this way or that, even between differing minorities, but those minorities are rarely empowered enough for their bigotry, where it exists, to impact others and almost never the dominant culture and/or race, which is rather important.
Or, as a word to be concerned about, I find more troubling Webster's
"poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race"
than I do
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"
though the second tends to lead to the first, at least where it meets means and power.
